HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CONTEMPT CASE No. 1 OF 2025

O R D E R:

Petitioner alleges that respondents deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 16.12.2024 in I.A.No. 2 of 2024 and order dated 27.12.2024 in I.A. No. 3 of

2024 in Writ Petition No. 32468 of 2024.

2. It is stated, petitioner is the existing agency providing manpower to the 3^rd respondent Organisation till 31.03.2025. During the currency of the agreement, though the 5^th respondent in the Writ Petition incurred disqualification on account of pendency of dues towards EPF as on the date of tender notification dated 03.09.2024, agency was allotted in their favour, through letter dated 14.11.2024 impugned in the Writ Petition.

3. On 20.11.2024, when the Writ Petition was heard, an undertaking was given on behalf of respondents that they would continue petitioner, however, on coming to know that the 3rd respondent entered into an agreement with unofficial respondent No.5 on 01.12.2024 for the contract for financial year 2024-25, during the subsistence of undertaking, petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2024 wherein by order dated 16.12.2024, this Court directed Respondents 2 to 4 to continue petitioner’s services pursuant to the Agreement of Contract dated 30.09.2022 by suspending the allotment of service of the 5th respondent dated 01.12.2024. Since the official respondents have not complied with the said order, petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 3 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 27.12.2024 directed Respondents 2 to 4 to permit petitioner to raise the bills which should be processed for the services being provided by petitioner. In terms of the said order, petitioner raised bills, but the official respondents have not processed the same and wilfully disobeyed both the interim orders.

4. The 1^st respondent District Collector states that as per the 2^nd respondent, dues were recovered from the 5^th respondent agency by the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 07.10.2024 to the tune of Rs.75,67,109/- and remitted in favour of Regional PF Commissioner, Hyderabad; further agency belongs to the 5^th respondent was taken into consideration pursuant to the notification dated 03.09.2024 and orders were issued to the same agency on 14.11.2024. In this regard, it is to be stated, it is the routine process of conducting the District Selection Committee for selection of outsourcing agency by the District Administration in terms of GO Rt.No. 4459, dated 27.12.2006, G.O.Rt.No. 4271 dated 01.11.2018. Petitioner stated in the Writ Petition that during the subsistence of renewal orders issued by the 2nd respondent on 31.03.2025, fresh orders were issued by the 2nd respondent selecting the agency of the 5^th respondent, but the very extension period was issued without the approval of the District Outsourcing Committee and ignoring the District Collector endorsement on 19.08.2024 directing to produce file with full details. Moreover, petitioner also filed Application for empanelment of outsourcing agencies vide notice dated 03.09.2024, therefore, it appears, petitioner is self-contradictory in producing the facts before the Court.

4.1. It is also stated, though this Court passed order dated 16.12.2024, petitioner filed Application for new empanelment along with other applicants including the 5th respondent through tender process; Applications were scrutinized by the District Selection Committee headed by the District Collector; in the tender process, declaration was obtained from the Applicants wherein it is clearly mentioned that the District Collector reserves the right to accept / reject any agency / society without assigning any reason; petitioner has filed declaration adhering to the said conditions, hence, they cannot question the same now by this contempt proceedings.

4.2. As regards the interim order in I.A.No. 3 of 2024 is concerned, it is stated, selection process was completed and agency of the 5^th respondent was selected after thor